High Court of KeralaOP(C)/3063/2015allowed

Sudevan v. Geethammal

2015-12-15Honourable Mr. Justice K.Abraham Mathew3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 OP(C).No. 3063 of 2015 (O) ------------------------------------------- E.A.NO.213/2011 IN O.S.NO.65/1999 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL ----------------- PETITIONER(S) :

-------------------------- SUDEVAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.VIDHAYADHARAN, THENKUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, KARAVARUM VILLAGE, KALLAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENT(S) :

----------------------------

1. GEETHAMMAL, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.GOMATHY AMMAL, SHWASHWATHAM MANIKANDA VILASOM, CHEMMARATHUM MUKKU, NAGAROOR VILLAGE, PIN- 695 601.

2. ASOKAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.ANANTHAKRISHAN, SARAWATHY MANDIRUM, CHEMMARATHUM MUKKU, NAGAROOR VILLAGE, PIN-695 601. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd.

OP(C).No. 3063 of 2015 (O) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

----------------------------------------- EXT.P1:

PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/10/2001 IN O.S.NO.65/1999 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL.

EXT.P2:

PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEPOSITION IN E.A.NO.213/2011 OF THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL.

EXT.P3:

PHOTOCOPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION E.A.NO.213/2011 IN O.S.NO.65/1999 SUB COURT ATTINGAL DATED 24/10/2011. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

------------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

-------------------------------------------------------- O.P.(C)No.3063 of 2015 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2015

JUDGMENT

Petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S.No.65 of 1999. E.P.No.31 of 2007 filed by him for execution of the decree is pending. The first respondent filed E.A.No.213 of 2011 apparently under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Evidence has been recorded in it. The complaint is that it has not been disposed of.

2. Heard.

3. I think the request of the petitioner that a direction be issued to the executing court to dispose of the execution application is reasonable.

In the result, this Original Petition is allowed. The executing court is directed to dispose of E.A.No.213 of 2011 within one month from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE cms /True copy/ P.S.to Judge